A literary leap into science vs. faith

In “Quantum Leap,” authors Dean Nelson and Karl Giberson use the life of physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne to wade into the debate about whether science and faith are compatible. Their answer: Yes.

Nelson, a professor of journalism at Point Loma Nazarene University, answered questions by email.

You write in the prologue about the debate between those who believe in science and those who believe in God: “There is a lot of diatribe, but not much dialogue.” Why do you think that is?

It seems like the people on either extreme of the question are afraid of the other. One side seems to think that if they believe in a scientific account of evolution, for instance, then they can’t believe in the message of the Bible about a loving God. Another side seems to think that if they believe in a loving God, then they have to look at the Bible as a historically accurate book and they can’t believe in scientific evidence. It takes work to be thoughtful about these issues, and it’s easier to just demonize each other. So, maybe a simpler answer could be boiled down to one word: Laziness.

Has it always been that way?

No. Since the Enlightenment, many people have come to believe that everything is in the mind. The Enlightenment wasn’t comfortable with mystery, so if it couldn’t be explained, then it must not really exist. I think we’re returning to an age where people are comfortable with both the life of the mind AND the life of the spirit.

Why did you want to write about John Polkinghorne?

He’s one of the most interesting people I’ve ever met. He embodies the life of the mind and the life of the spirit that I just referred to. He’s a brilliant physicist who also takes the Eucharist seriously. He knows there is always something else going on, and he’s not a crackpot.

What can he teach the rest of us?

He can teach us that there is always more to the story. Whatever we think God is, there is always more. Whatever we think the universe is, there is always more. He can teach us that science and faith can inform each other, not cancel each other out.

Can you summarize how he came to believe that science and religion are compatible?

Science, especially physics, gets less specific the deeper you go into it. It gets more mysterious. So does faith. They both search for truth, so there shouldn’t be a contradiction in our desire to find truth, either in science or faith.

What’s the most difficult thing for him in arguing that position?

A lot of people feel that there is no place for faith, since it can’t be proved in a laboratory. But love can’t be proved in that context, and we still believe in love. Some say that if there is a loving God then there wouldn’t be genocide, disasters or children with cancer. And some terrible things have been done in the name of religion. For some, that’s proof that there is no such thing as a loving God. But Polkinghorne would say that there is more to the story. The world is still being created. People are still exercising free will. And love is present throughout even the pain and disaster.